Good.

Shame

Apparently if the Act was unconstitutional as applied to a medium (as opposed to large) fraction then it would have been unconstitutional...?!?

Excellent!

AP article notes that a full 6 of the US Courts of Appeals were reversed by the decision. I hope there's some benchslapping in there.

As the opinion notes, the way elections had consequences in this case was that the country elected a president who wouldn't veto the Partial Birth Abortion Act. According to the majority's discussion, Congress tried to pass it during Clinton's administration, but he vetoed it.

Damn you and your lack of outrage, Lat!!! I KNEW you were a right-wing wacko!!!

I'm pro choice, but partial birth abortions are fucking sick.

If you're going to abort, there's no good excuse for waiting til later stages.

True: Elections have consequences, whether the party who gets the majority of the votes gets to take power (as in 2006 congressional), or not (as in 2000 presidential and, by extension, 2004).

YLS08, there are many other places on the internet where you can get your outrage. Personally I'll take my legal gossip and humor with the outrage on the side.

10:42, if that many circuit courts were reversed, it's probably a sign that the Court is making new doctrine - not that the circuit courts blithely ignored existing doctrine.

Hard to believe that six appeals courts got this wrong based on Supreme Court precedent. Or at least Supreme Court precedent as it existed before today.

At least Roberts and Alito had the decency not to sign on to Thomas's concurrence saying that Roe should be overruled. It's not much, but it's something.

Actually, pip, there are good reasons for waiting to the later stages, usually medical ones. Yes, late-term abortions are gruesome and not something anyone would want to experience. But most are performed not because a woman waited seven months to decide she didn't want a child, but because the fetus has severe disabilities and/or the mother's life is in danger. The anti-choice crowd has managed to skew this debate by portraying women who get late-term abortions as callous women who can't make up their minds. It's usually quite the opposite.

Lat -- I think it is really inappropriate that you use that picture in this context. Anti-Choice supporters have done a good job of portraying this abortion procedure in a bad light which cause some people to say it is "sick" and should be outlawed. However, ACOG has stated that sometimes the procedure is medically necessary. To those of you who applaud this decision, I am sure you will never be in the position to find yourself pregnant and unprepared. This decision is horrific and it ignores other Supreme Court precedent. You choice in pictures is inappropriate, as is your approach to this story.

10:50, my sarcasm doesn't always come through via the internets...

Where can I get the opinion? It doesn't seem to be on the SCOTUS site.

The press reports are stressing the fact that this decision the first case in which the Court ruled on "how - not whether - to perform an abortion." But are there safe alternative procedures after the 12-week mark? Does this effectively ban late-term abortions?

And are there any carve-outs from the Act? That is, does it preserve the ability to perform the procedure in instances where carrying the fetus to term could compromise/endanger the mother's health? What about instances when the mother can carry to term but the child won't survive outside the womb?

As Senatrix Barbara Boxer recently observed: "Elections have consequences."

Indeed they do. And the consequences here are, in my (and clearly the majority of Americans') opinion very, very positive.

Lat--inappropriate picture.

I'm guessing Gonzales held on to his AG position because he wanted his name on the Supreme Court's decision. Sort of like a parting gift for him on the way out.

10:57 and 10:58 -- AMEN. Totally inappropriate picture. And totally unacceptable to pretend that this is about anything other than state control over women's bodies and the doctor-patient relationship. Since when is that acceptable?

this is the best supreme court decision on abortion EVER

State control over women's bodies has always been acceptable. See e.g. the illegality of prositution; beastiality.

Great news! Let's keep going. Roll back Roe v. Wade. The unborn children are people too.

Dred Scott was on the books for far too long. Let's not make the same mistate with Roe.

Why is that picture inappropriate? Because it makes pro-abortion people uncomfortable by blurring the line between partial birth abortion and infanticide?

Embrace that picture, pro-abortion people. Own it. Have the courage of your convictions.

1. There's no such thing as a partial birth abortion

2. The ONLY late stage abortions that happen are those cases in which something has gone terribly wrong -- these abortions happen in cases where the pregnancies were WANTED, and often abortion is the only option to allow the woman another chance at a healthy pregnancy

3. Congress knew #2 but ignored it because they conducted no hearings before passing this law in 2003. Who cares about reality when you've got hungry constituents to feed

If you're against abortion, fine. But if you're against this, at least get the facts on who exactly are having the abortions.

AAAH! THAT WOMAN HAS SOMETHING GROWING INSIDE HER!!

KILL IT!!! KILL IT!!!

10:54 is right. According to AP: "Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

In his concurrence to today's opinion, Justice Thomas states: "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."

I agree wholly with 10:57. The overwhelming majority of late term abortions are performed as a result of medical necessity for the health of the mother. A friend of mine had severe preeclampsia at 25 weeks and had to deliver immediately to avoid stroking out and dying. As it happened her fetus was viable, but if it had happened two weeks earlier access to an abortion would literally have determined her survival or death.

can't we all just agree that conservatives suck and are an aberrant blip/stain in our country's progress?

What's the case name or cite? Can't seem to find it in any article.

Anti-choice cracks me up, it's like calling pro-choice people pro-death, pure hyperbole. Anyway, no matter what you believe about whether abortions should be outlawed, any reasonable person with legal training has to know that Roe v. Wade was a fiction, and that Thomas is right that it has no Constitutional basis.

go to www.scotusblog.com for all relevant case info. Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (05-1382) consolidated

great picture. this bans the D&X procedure right? that shit is really disgusting and clearly murder

For those that wanted the opinion it can be found at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

As to the people talking about the details, I haven't given it a full read but have skimmed the bulk of the majority. The statute (at least as interpreted by the court) doesn't ban all second+ term abortions, it only bans a particular procedure (intact D&E) which is just one of a few different procedures that are used for late term abortions.

After this it seems that women can still get late-term pre-viability abortions, they just can't get them done in one particular way (intact D&E aka "partial birth").

Hopefully, this is the first step towards throwing Roe v. Wade on the ash heap with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu.

Hopefully, this is the first step towards making ours a society in which being pro-abortion is viewed in the same shameful category as being pro-slavery.

The decision isn't that far reaching. Pro-choice crowd - don't get so freaked out about it. The Partial Birth Abortion Act only banned one type of procedure - called D&X, that is considered particularly inhumane and similar to infanticide. It is even rarely used. There were many prominent abortion specialists that came out in support of the ban because they said the abortion type was only used by incompetent doctors. Carhart, for example, is a real creep.

Congress passed the ban nearly unanimously, including a huge majority of Democrats.

The major reason the decision came down the way it did is because there is an absolute alternative to D&X in every case - D&E, which is much more "humane." The court does leave the door open for as-applied constitutional challenges, while this was a on it face constitutional challenge.

This tells us nothing about where abortion rights will go in the future. I seriously doubt Casey will be overruled anytime in the near future; its application may be somewhat modified, but don't forget that it was written in part by Kennedy.

The problem with this decision is that it gives the opportunity for people like Loyala 2L to exist.

I feel like a lot of us tolerate the right-wing garbage on this site because when Lat's good, he's sharp and funny and has interesting things to say about the legal profession and the practice of law.

But I've had enough. I'm done. I look forward to reading again when the Dealbreaker folks pass the reins to someone who isn't intent on using this site as a platform to break into conservative punditry.

Why is it more important to the right wing to protect the unborn baby than the already living mother? Is this some original sin thing?

In his concurrence to today's opinion, Justice Thomas states: "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."

================

The organ grinds and the little man in the funny costume dances. I love this play.

What's so "right-wing" about this post? It's a big blockquote from an AP story, plus some links to SCOTUSblog and the slip opinion.

Liberals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them wholeheartedly is a right-wing nut job.

Bye-bye, 11:31. Take your humorless and embittered self somewhere else.

here, here, anon 11:31. i agree. lat's below-the-surface political biases reveal themselves in cheap and facile ways that make this site less pleasurable to peruse. lat makes half-assed claims of neutrality, which only belie his absolute lack of it in nearly everything he does on here.

I think judge Posner neatly summed up the situation in his dissent in Hope Clinic v. Ryan. "

Imagine a married woman, pregnant, told by her physician that her life depends on her obtaining an abortion. He tells her it would be better from the standpoint of minimizing the risk to her of medical complications [**72] from the abortion for her to have a D & X. But, he adds, unfortunately the law prohibits the procedure. It does so not because the procedure kills the fetus, not because it risks worse complications for the woman than alternative procedures would do, not because it is a crueler or more painful or more disgusting method of terminating a pregnancy, but because the state wishes to make a statement of opposition to constitutional doctrine.

A legislature may be taken to intend any consequences [*882] of its handiwork that are at once natural, highly probable, and wholly foreseeable (and foreseen). Here the intent is to block a woman from seeking an abortion when her doctor advises her that the best procedure for her is criminal."

That is exactly what is going on here. The Partial Birth Abortion Act is a symbolic statement of opposition to abortion. Such statements should not be made at the expense of the concrete needs of individual women.

I am with 11:31. I usually love ATL, but this coverage has completely turned me off.

A Big Question About Clarence Thomas

By Douglas T. Kendall

Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A31

A little-noticed bombshell was dropped by Justice Antonin Scalia in a recently released biography of Justice Clarence Thomas. It poses an interesting dilemma for President Bush this election season, in that it raises the question of whether he should continue to cite Thomas as one of his model Supreme Court justices.

The evidence, of course, suggests that a repudiation of Thomas by the president is extremely unlikely. Indeed, Ken Foskett, the author of "Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas," claims that top Bush administration officials have discussed with Thomas the possibility of his succeeding William Rehnquist as chief justice.

But Scalia's pointed comments to Foskett complicate Bush's support for Thomas considerably. Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."

Stare decisis is a fancy Latin term that stands for a bedrock proposition of U.S. law: that the Supreme Court will uphold precedent and not disturb settled law without special justification. As Justice Thurgood Marshall explained for the court in 1986, stare decisis is the "means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion."

Four years ago, Rehnquist echoed Marshall in a case that reaffirmed the Miranda warning given before police interrogations, stating that stare decisis "carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some 'special justification.' "

Stare decisis is not and should not be an ironclad rule -- otherwise Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregation, would still be on the books. But almost everyone agrees that respect for the doctrine is indispensable for a Supreme Court justice. As Thomas himself explained at his confirmation hearing, "stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."

It is unlikely that any nominee of any president would be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he or she admitted to a disbelief in the doctrine of established case law. Court watchers know that Scalia's statement about Thomas goes to the heart of a jurisprudential chasm that separates the court's two most conservative justices. Scalia is fiercely conservative, but by and large he judges within the parameters of the rules laid down by predecessors. Thomas rarely appears to feel so confined.

The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law.

Far better known is Thomas's concurrence in United States v. Lopez, where, alone among the justices, he expressed a willingness to reexamine fundamental aspects of the court's jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause -- granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" -- is the principal power used by the federal government to protect civil rights, worker safety and the environment. Thomas's views, if adopted by the court, would call into question fundamental statutes in all these areas. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in a separate opinion, "the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature."

Reading a Thomas opinion can feel like hitting 100 mph on a deserted highway: thrilling (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) but still a bad idea. The excitement of approaching every constitutional question anew comes at the cost of a stab to our constitutional tradition. No president should accept this trade-off.

The writer is executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

It bears repeating: Elections have consequences.

I can remember in 2000 the most strident of my progressive/liberal friends claiming that principle demanded that they vote for Nader, all of whom dismissed my objections that doing so could risk giving the presidency over to a born-again simpleton who would fill the Court (and courts) with uber conservatives; roll back all of the environmental progress of the 90's; and turn our then surplus into a deficit, ensuring both future shortfalls and tax hikes.

In late 2003/early 2004 I can recall warning similar (though not quite as crazed) types of the risks of supporting Dean, as doing so would steal early funding and thunder from Kerry and would force Kerry to move his comments to the left throughout the primaries (making for an endless supply of "flip-flop" soundbites). Again, these people allowed their deranged hatred of Bush to throw caution - and the fate of the Court - to the wind.

Let's cut out the PC slogans. What is pro-choice? You are pro-abortion? There is no choice. You don't have to choose to stay pregnant, biology takes care of that for you. You have to choose to kill the child. The other side isn't "anti-choice," they're anti-abortion.

As a side rant - I'll bet dollars to donuts that the pro-abortion posters also think that the "radical right" is full of ignorant fools for ignoring current scientific advances and refusing to allow stem cell research.

Why is there a disconnect with this logic when it comes to abortion. Science says, contrary to, again, slogans, that very early on the child is a child, not a fetus or mass of cells. Children as early as 10 weeks have the ability to feel pain, etc.

I'll support stem cell research if you recognize science. can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can someone point to some actual text in the post that shows right-wing bias?

The Barbara Boxer quote is descriptive - the pendulum swings left, the pendulum swings right - rather than normative.

As for the photo, it is what it is. People who support partial birth abortion shouldn't be troubled by it. Are they troubled by random pro-life protestors standing outside clinics with pictures of aborted fetuses in the trash?

Fo those of you who would like a liberal slant, please feel free to read the New York Times.

"lat's below-the-surface political biases"

Good job captain obvious. Lat, the ex-O'Scannlain clerk, guest speaker at the Federalist Society this week, refers to Judge Reinhardt as "Emperor Palpatine," etc.

Did you discover the biases below the surface through hard work and sleuthing, or do you have a sixth sense that none of the rest of us have?

AFAIK, Lat's generally conservative, but is more interested in writing a funny tabloid chronicling the falls from grace of whoever happens to be falling from grace at any given time than in eradicating abortion. I find that he's equally merciless in posting on stupid liberals as he is in posting on stupid conservatives.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's not as if ATL is the only game in town, and it's not as if ATL was Dealbreaker's idea and they happened to hire Lat to run it.

anon 11 45

Another example of why liberals are idiots....

This is anon 11:31 again:

"Liberals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them wholeheartedly is a right-wing nut job."

No. I'm cool reading smart conservatives, but I don't need flippant nutjobbery here. I'm sick of it. It's a failure to understand the site or care about appealing to a general audience. Kind of like if Monday Night Football announcers abruptly stopped commenting on the game and started arguing about substantive due process or Darfur.

Sorry to be "humorless," but partial birth abortion isn't exactly a laugh riot for either side.

Logic, you'll support stem cell research "if" pro-choice people "recognize science"?

1) Your support is conditional and, therefore, you don't actually support stem cell research.

or

2) Your conditional offer ignores the fact that there already are people who are anti-abortion AND pro-stem cell research.

Now, how could anyone harbor the thought that the radical right is full of "ignorant fools"?

Fo those of you who would like a liberal slant, please feel free to read the New York Times.

anon 11 45

Another example of why liberals are idiots....

Come on! I am strongly against late-term abortions, but NOT if forbidding one will severely damage a mother's health. She should at least have the right to make the choice to destroy her own health and possibly eliminate her chance to raise any children she might already have.

Come on! I am strongly against late-term abortions, but NOT if forbidding one will severely damage a mother's health. She should at least have the right to make the choice to destroy her own health and possibly eliminate her chance to raise any children she might already have.

11:53 - it's called sarcasm. Obviously you are wholly unfamiliar with sarcasm. You must than be sincere when you say that no one can harbor the thought that the radical right is full of ignorant fools.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your uninformed opinions.

this is getting ridiculous. i think the level of contention over this should only serve to remind us that our parents and grandparents severely f******* up the public policy of reproductive rights in this country. much has been written over this [the adjudication of fundamental abortion rights issues in the adversarial and divisive legal arena as opposed to the legislative one and attendant polarization], but it really is instructive to see how western europe and other similarly situated countries have dealt with this issue, with the result being much less polarization, divisiveness and rancor.

nice job.

Wait... Lat is a gay republican? I thought those were an urban myth, like black members of the Klan and Jewish Nazis. How can you support a party that goes out of its way to explicitly express its contempt for you in its official platform every four years?

I guess that explains why this place is so incoherent: we love "divas," but we hate law firms that mis-treat associates, but we love biglaw firms and wouldn't give others the time of day, but we hate biglaw firms because they're mean to poor innocent Charney because he's gay, but we like the Republican party because it's mean to gays, but we hate S&C because it has lots of gay partners but a gay associate says it's full of divas but we love divas but.... Hey, did you hear who's getting married?

Anyway, now I understand why this place never makes any sense.

Wasn't this same law (albeit in Nebraska) found unconstitutional by the Court in Stenberg? I guess changing O'Connor for Alito is already having far-reaching effects.

"The major reason the decision came down the way it did is because there is an absolute alternative to D&X in every case - D&E, which is much more "humane." The court does leave the door open for as-applied constitutional challenges, while this was a on it face constitutional challenge."

Wrong! The alternative to the banned procedure is dismembering the fetus INSIDE the woman's uterus and taking it out piece by piece. That's hardly more humane by any standard (symbolic otherwise) and that's what makes the law irrational. It's not going to stop any abortions -- it's just going to change the way they're done for aesthetic reasons, in a way that puts women potentially at risk.

I'm still not getting how this can be interpreted as a "right wing" post. I saw the picture as a tongue-in-cheek joke on pro-lifers who will go to such silly extremes as to put together such a inciting photo.

WHY is the picture inappropriate?

WHY is the picture inappropriate? it's part of the commentary

Another disturbing aspect of the ban is that it interferes with the extremely personal grieving process of a mother of a WANTED fetus she has to abort (for her own health or because of fetal defect). Many of those mothers choose to use the intact procedure in order to be able to hold the baby and say goodbye afterwards.

I realize that this is statistically a small segment of late-term abortions (most are, in fact, elective and not for health reasons), but it nevertheless shows the incredible invasion of privacy and liberty constituted by the law. It's akin to the state telling you you're not allowed to have an open-casket funeral.

Another disturbing aspect of the ban is that it interferes with the extremely personal grieving process of a mother of a WANTED fetus she has to abort (for her own health or because of fetal defect). Many of those mothers choose to use the intact procedure in order to be able to hold the baby and say goodbye afterwards.

I realize that this is statistically a small segment of late-term abortions (most are, in fact, elective and not for health reasons), but it nevertheless shows the incredible invasion of privacy and liberty constituted by the law. It's akin to the state telling you you're not allowed to have an open-casket funeral.

12:14 / addled: HILARIOUS. (But that said, I don't think people visit ATL for its ideological rigor.)

I like how Ginsburg considers "abortion doctor" a pejorative term, when it is descriptively accurate for the plaintiffs in the case.

That picture is offensive.

The picture is objectively cool. But it's inappropriate because it appears to be a viable fetus and a healthy mother, which IS NOT THE ISSUE in this case. Abortion on viable fetuses is already restricted under Roe. The procedure banned in this case is used on nonviable fetuses, or on "viable" fetuses with severe defects, or (in theory) on viable fetuses threatening the health of the woman. I'm not sure it's even ever used in this latter category.

12:55 - Offensive? An offensive picture would be one of you screwing your neighbor's cat. How on earth can a picture of an apparently very pregnant woman be offensive????

Viable now equals 21 weeks, 6 days, post-conception.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2888874&page=1

word*star at 01:04 PM is the last word on the question of the picture, except "inappropriate" should be changed to "deliberately misleading."

How is it offensive? If you're all for ripping the baby apart late term, then why would you be offended? This is the liking sausage but not wanting to see it made line of reason.

If it offends you, maybe you should question your position.

"Viable now equals 21 weeks, 6 days, post-conception."

WRONG! Viability is individually determined in each case. There is no hard-and-fast line. That's why the Roe division into trimesters is acknowledged to reflect a legal rather than medical standard.

1:12 - A lot has changed since you went to medical school.

Roe - that was 30+ years ago. Some things in science have advanced since that time.

I guess under your argument the best way to cure headaches is to drill a hole in the skull to let the demons escape.

1:12 - Even the most liberal professors at my Tier 1 law school admit/concede that Roe hardly reflected a "legal" standard.

1:15: You have completely misunderstood me. The point is that legal viability and medical viability are two different things. Legal viability (under Roe) is an arbitrary line drawn, informed by science but only an approximation when applied to particular cases. Medical viability can only be determined on a case by case basis with respect to an individual fetus and the available life support technology. Here is what the British Medical Association has to say:

"Although it is helpful to pinpoint a particular gestational age as being the point of viability, it is important also to bear in mind that gestational age is not the only factor that affects the possibility of a fetus being considered viable (however that is defined). Factors such as birth weight, whether it is a multiple pregnancy and the gender of the fetus also affect the likely outcome. Even if a fetus reaches a gestational age which is considered the minimum possible for viability, many others factors come into play as to whether that particular fetus is or may be viable. Another relevant factor to consider in discussing viability therefore is whether 'fetal viability' relates to the minimum stage possible for any fetus to survive or, for example, the stage at which the majority of infants will survive. Defining the gestational age of “fetal viability”, therefore, is by no means straightforward."

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~viability

1:12 - A lot has changed since you went to medical school.

conservatives and pro-lifers are retards and hicks

"Even the most liberal professors at my Tier 1 law school admit/concede that Roe hardly reflected a "legal" standard. "

Sigh. I mean an objective "legal" rule of neutral application to all cases, as opposed to an medical judgment about an individual case.

If there were a law declaring "No abortions after viabilty, defined as 21 weeks of gestation," then 21 weeks would be a determination of legal viability, not medical viability. The law would not magically make all 21 week fetuses viable in real life!

The point is, just because one fetus has survived at 21 weeks does not necessarily mean that "viability" under the law is 21 weeks for every fetus.

You're right 1:25. We want to protect babies and execute murderers. You want to kill babies and save murderers. But we're the retards and hicks?

Here's something that is sure to cheer you up: We're retards and hicks, but smart enough to "steal" the 2000 and 2004 elections. Could even beat a bunch of slack-jawed yocals. So, what does that make you? Hmm, what's dumber and less competent than a retard (Kerry, Gore, etc.)

You're relying on the Brits as your source for medical knowledge? Good job. Socialized medicine is always cutting edge. I really on them for my dentistry knowledge.

You're relying on the Brits as your source for medical knowledge? Good job. Socialized medicine is always cutting edge. I rely on them for my dentistry knowledge.

wait, someone explain to me, does this ruling really apply to everyone or just the hicks in Jesusland?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

1:31 - so does that mean that the abortion providers at planned parenthood are checking to see if each individual fetus 22, 23, or 24 weeks is viable before they start the D&E or D&X?

I didn't think so.

What's ridiculous is that Lat is being accused by leftists of having posted a "political" post because he didn't take a leftist position. Put another way, because he didn't show outrage or decry the opinion, his post was "political," even though he also did not show any support for the opinion. Apparently, if you're not overtly with them, you're against them.

News flash: Lat's post is apolitical. He did not opine about the opinion; he neither described the decision as good or bad, but simply reported that the decision had happened. He then made a purely objective observation that the votes by Alito and Roberts might confirm what people suspect/hope for/fear (choose your own adventure) about a shift in the Court.

Some will probably suggest that the choice of picture was political. I think that argument goes about as far as I can throw it, because I agree with 11:12, but I'll concede it has more merit than asserting that Lat's words were in any way political.

RBG has it right. This decision doesn't save a single fetus's life. If a doc can't do an abortion this way, she'll do it another way. Because these types are only done when medically necessary anyway, and no doc who performed abortions previously is going to refuse to perform an abortion when her patient's life or health are at risk. So this decision doesn't save fetuses. It only deprives doctors of a procedure that might be less risky to the woman.

By the way, how can Kennedy say that this statute is constitutional under the Commerce Clause after Lopez? And in case you think I'm agreeing with that idiot Thomas, why does Thomas insist on citing his own poorly-reasoned dissents in every concurrence or dissent he ever writes? ("The court is wrong because I said so.")

Are you people blind and stupid? Look at the picture again. It's of a woman's pregnant belly who is probably in her third trimester (any med students / people with real experience here to verify?), with the outline of fetus's foot. It can be inferred that the fetus is viable. Repeating what previous posters have already said, THIS EXAMPLE IS NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE, in the gonzales v. carhart case, or with the whole controversy regarding intact D&E generally. Lat's EDITORIAL decision to place this photograph here is disingenuous and is definitely not "apolitical". To call it "apolitical" is to deny the similar EDITORIAL [read: subjective] visual tactics used by the pro-life/anti-abortion in the abortion wars. It's fine that Lat is injecting some sort of editorial comment; this IS his website, remember? Just call a spade a spade (or a fetus not-at-issue a fetus).

The picture is ridiculous. I'm fine with people opposing abortion generally and/or partial birth abortions. But this picture makes it look as if those of us with a different view are supporting the killing of kicking full-term children.

This procedure is used where a woman's medical needs require extraordinary care. This picture completely distorts that fact. Really, Lat ought to just come out and say what he thinks on the subject rather than PRETEND to be neutral while using a picture like that. At least then it would be clear that he buys into right-wing propoganda -- at lesat to the extent that it isn't against people with his sexual orientation. That, of course, IS inappropriate.

Why are all of the people on the left resorting to name calling? Are you so devoid of a solid argument that you have to use insulting slurs? I thought you held yourselves up as the intellectual elite. You're certainly not coming off that way.

I have no time or patience for the asinine arguments of my intellectual inferiors, therefore I find it much more efficient to resort to name-calling, you sorry, dimwitted, bible-thumping hick.

Another victory for authoritarian central gov't!

Don't worry people, I'm sure the federal government and our health care industry will come up with various programs to support the families who will ultimately be affected by these bans and provide financial, medical, social assistance to the children who are born with devestating physical handicaps and families of the mothers who die or become handicapped as a result of the inability to perform this procedure.

Oh wait....

2:42: That's not very nice. Do you blow your mother with that mouth?

The age of viability is somewhere around week 23 (although the youngest baby to ever survive was an IVF baby born at 21 weeks 6 days). However, viability has nothing to do with movement, including visible movement (yes, you can actually see a baby moving inside a pregnant woman) - movement starts early in the first trimester.

Instead, viability is the point where there is ANY chance of survival outside the womb.

The reality of abortion is that it does in fact kill living babies - and when talking about second trimester abortions, those babies are recognizable as human.

Needless to say I am STRONGLY against abortions after week 12, unless they are:
(1) to save the mother's life or
(2) fetuses that have ZERO chance of survival - for example, trisomy 18, anancephaly, Potters Syndrome.

To the posters denying reality...... Fetuses are babies.

I have been pregnant before, twice in fact. I had a first trimester ultrasound with my first baby at 11 weeks, 5 days. At that time I could have had an abortion, if I was so inclined, in any state in the union. A regular, garden variety abortion.

In that ultrasound, I saw a tiny baby with arms waving and legs kicking and moving. I could not yet feel the movements, but there was no question that the baby was alive.

To the posters denying reality...11 week old fetuses have no thoughts, feelings, or emotions other than those imputed to them by their mothers.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote that ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote the ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote the ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions and stop crying. When Obama is president he'll appoint some more liberal justices for you.

"Needless to say I am STRONGLY against abortions after week 12, unless they are:
(1) to save the mother's life or
(2) fetuses that have ZERO chance of survival - for example, trisomy 18, anancephaly, Potters Syndrome."

This view doesn't make much sense to me. What is it that happens at 12 weeks that's so special? Is it just that it happens to look more like a baby then? So it's just an aesthetic thing? Does that make any sense as a way to make law?

Also, would you refuse a woman an abortion at 14 weeks if she needed it to prevent serious disability (like the Polish woman who was blinded when she was refused an abortion) or, say, the pregnancy only posed a 10% risk of death?

"why does Thomas insist on citing his own poorly-reasoned dissents in every concurrence or dissent he ever writes? ("The court is wrong because I said so.")"

Because the Court *is* wrong, and because he *did* say so, and those dissents is where he said it.

Not that hard to figure out.

There is nothing "poor" about the reasoning that non-commercial activity within the boundaries of a state is not regulable by Congress. In fact it's rather elementary. Odd that it has eluded so many for so long.

How many Polish women does it take to get an abortion?

Thomas supporter - Thomas is a dimwitted nincompoop and everyone knows it. Get over it and move on.

Everyone - I guess the Thomas supporter knows it too, and doesn't realize it. Thomas supporter, why didn't you know that?

Clarence Thomas raped me. Seriously.

"This view doesn't make much sense to me. What is it that happens at 12 weeks that's so special? Is it just that it happens to look more like a baby then? So it's just an aesthetic thing? Does that make any sense as a way to make law?"

Week 12 is the end of the first trimester. After week 12, there is a less than 1% chance of pregnancy loss. Prior to week 9 or 10, the baby isn't called a fetus - it's an embryo and it's survival is more precarious.

Prior to week 4, there is a 50/50 chance the pregnancy will proceed

At week 6, there is a 60% chance of survival

Once a heartbeat of 120 is seen after week 8, there is only a 10% chance that the pregnancy will be lost.

2:58,

Assuming for the sake of argument that a fetus is indeed a person, does not necessitate a conclusion that abortion should be legally wrong.

I am not *legally* required to loan someone a kidney just because they are dying. Even if my child were dying, I would not be required to loan them my kidney. (Immoral - maybe, illegal - no).

As a society we have taken the philosophical position, that a person is not entitled to things just because they require them to survive, particularly when those things require another person to do or act in some way that may cause them harm or even discomfort.

Why then do you take the position that a fetus is LEGALLY ENTITLED to stay inside a mother's womb?

Morally you have an argument. Legally, I think you're on shaky ground.

"Why then do you take the position that a fetus is LEGALLY ENTITLED to stay inside a mother's womb?"

Reliance interest. Having fucked, the mother is estopped from aborting.

3:26

Pregnancy and organ donation are not comparable.

With respect to organ donation, your ommission (i.e. your failure to donate an organ) only allows a natural process to continue/result - death.

With respect to abortion, my failure to have an abortion results in life - in the 2nd trimester, it is almost certain that the pregnancy will result in a live birth (99.9% certain). Only by intervening do I cause death.

3:26

Pregnancy and organ donation are not comparable.

With respect to organ donation, your ommission (i.e. your failure to donate an organ) only allows a natural process to continue/result - death.

With respect to abortion, my failure to have an abortion results in life - in the 2nd trimester, it is almost certain that the pregnancy will result in a live birth (99.9% certain). Only by intervening do I cause death.

clarence thomas also once peed in my closet while very drunk.

I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?

any cunt who reasons that "if I get pregnant I can always just get an abortion" should be shot

I'm pro choice, but it's evil to think ahead of time of abortion as an optin

"I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?"

What do you suggest? Shots from www.gapmaternity.com? LOL!

Why is it creepy? While I suspect that it is a doctored photo, reality is reality - pregnant bellies not only look cute, there is something even cuter on the insude. ;)

I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?

clarence thomas wants to ban beards.

3:33,

Unfortunately, your commission/omission distinction also fails. Second (somewhat famous) hypothetical:

Say that a newborn's kidneys are not fully developed and that a 24/7 connection between a father and child must go on for 9 months, until the child's kidneys develop "naturally" on their own. So let's say that the father consents to being hooked up to the child initially. But that after 2 weeks, a month, 5 months, the father wants to have the tubes removed. Maybe he's tired all the time, maybe his back hurts from carrying the child around. Maybe he's got a job offer that the arrangement would interfere with. The father has the LEGAL RIGHT to remove his tubes at any time, even though the child will die as a result. Even though the child will eventually be healthy if he continues the connection. He would not be required by law to continue that connection.

Clarence Thomas was responsible for faking the moon landing.

any cunt who reasons that "if I get pregnant I can always just get an abortion" should be shot

I'm pro choice, but it's evil to think ahead of time of abortion as an optin

Posted by: pip | April 18, 2007 03:43 PM
==========

Save me Joe Louis.

clarence thomas rarely bathes.

Clarence Thomas owns a rare photo of Normal Rockwell beating a child.

"Say that a newborn's kidneys are not fully developed and that a 24/7 connection between a father and child must go on for 9 months, until the child's kidneys develop "naturally" on their own. So let's say that the father consents to being hooked up to the child initially. But that after 2 weeks, a month, 5 months, the father wants to have the tubes removed. Maybe he's tired all the time, maybe his back hurts from carrying the child around. Maybe he's got a job offer that the arrangement would interfere with. The father has the LEGAL RIGHT to remove his tubes at any time, even though the child will die as a result. Even though the child will eventually be healthy if he continues the connection. He would not be required by law to continue that connection."

In your hypothetical, the natural process is death. The father, in that case, is refusing to CONTINUE an unnatural medical treatment. That is no different than refusing surgery or consenting to donate an organ, but changing one's mind.

In contrast, the natural state in pregnancy is to remain pregnant. The act of abortion interrupts the process of creating life.

Even though the father has the ability to save the child's life, he is not obligated to because nature created a child with a condition that would result in that child's death.

clarence thomas has promised to purchase jesse helms' collection of "little shoes" after the senator's death.

KFU, your hypo, famous or not, is retarded. Are we in a world where such kidney disorders happen as a direct result of the father's free choice to have sex, and where he knew that it was possible that this would happen as a result of that choice, and where hundreds of thousands of people would face that same choice every year, and thus many thousands of newborns would die if the choice to unhook the tubes were permitted?

When Clarence Thomas fought Rocky Marciano he was 112 years old.

Clarence Thomas has invented a device that now makes time travel possible.

Clarence Thomas set Thích Quảng Đức ablaze.

4:08,

So what if we rather than aborting a fetus performed a early C-section and allowed the fetus to die of "natural" causes? Would that satisfy your arbitrary natural vs. unnatural distinction?

4:12,

The hypothetical was not addressing that particular issue. I'm sorry you can't read well enough to determine that fact on your own. If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position. You would wind up limiting all sorts of activities women engage in that may or may not cause harm to the fetus. After all there are nearly as many miscarriages as there are abortions in this country. Why not just keep women at home?

Clarence Thomas was behind Hurricane Katrina

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 18, 2007
Filed at 4:09 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wednesday's Supreme Court action upheld a ban on a form of abortion denounced by opponents as ''partial birth abortion.''

While the procedure is intended for abortions after 21 weeks of gestation, abortion rights groups argue that the ban is so broad that it will prevent other procedures done earlier. They also contend it is often the safest procedure for a women.

But opponents of the method say that because it is done late in pregnancy it can amount to infanticide.

The procedure is formally known as dilation and extraction and is also referred to as late term abortion, D&X or Intact D&X. It involves dilating the cervix and removing the fetus.

Common side effects for most women include nausea, bleeding and cramping which may occur for two weeks following the procedure.

Possible alternatives include dilation and evacuation, a procedure usually used between 15 and 21 weeks of gestation; labor-induction abortion or, rarely, a procedure described as like a mini-caesarian.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, of 1.3 million abortions in 2000, the most recent data available, 2,200 involved this procedure.

More Articles in National »

"So what if we rather than aborting a fetus performed a early C-section and allowed the fetus to die of "natural" causes? Would that satisfy your arbitrary natural vs. unnatural distinction?"

(1) C-sections are hardly natural :) If a c-section is performed or labor induced for the sole purpose of killing a healthy fetus (which I define as a fetus that will almost certainly result in a live birth and not afflicted with genetic anomalies that will result in death at birth or shortly thereafter)/allowing that fetus to die, then that is no different from D&X.

Nature intends for healthy pregnancies to result in healthy deliveries. Affirmatively acting to arrest that process through artificial induction of labor or a c-section ends life.

(2) D&X is tantamount to murder. It is used on near-viable and viable fetuses. The baby is turned breach and murdered when the head is about to enter the birth canal. How is that different from giving birth and smashing the baby's head several minutes later, once it has drawn its first breath (babies after 19 or 20 weeks will draw breath, even if not viable)?

Illegal abortions are the fifth leading cause of death to women in Mexico.

"The hypothetical was not addressing that particular issue. I'm sorry you can't read well enough to determine that fact on your own. If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position. You would wind up limiting all sorts of activities women engage in that may or may not cause harm to the fetus. After all there are nearly as many miscarriages as there are abortions in this country. Why not just keep women at home?"

Miscarriage rarely results from a woman's activity. Miscarriage is due either to chromosomal anomaly (vast majority of cases) or to hormonal imbalance. It is pure fiction that shock or jumping on a trampoline will cause a miscarriage. Pregnant women can typically continue normal activities (and there is little proof that bedrest does anything to prolong pregnancy) unless there are signs of threatened miscarriage.

KFU, I know the hypo didn't address that issue, thats my point. We're not talking about an isolated freak case where the rules only affect one life. Also, you state: "If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position."

Is this really such a ridiculous idea to you? Don't we legally require men, even boys, to support a child for 21 years because they have to take responsibility for their actions? Its not that its her fault, its that its her responsibility. Big difference.

And you can easily have a rule forbidding purposeful elimination of the fetus without a rule regulating all activites that "may" harm the fetus. Sorry you can't see the distinction.

Make sure you read the description of D&X in the opinion itself. It is SICK. The doctor's testimony describes seeking the kicking legs emerge from the women, then sucking the brains out and watching those little legs go limp. Oh, and the fetus was 26.5 weeks - CLEARLY VIABLE.

This is not a procedure designed to eliminate some cells.

And did you read the alternative? That involves dismembering the little baby and taking it out of its mother peice by peice.

Anyone that can do this is INHUMAN and IMMORAL. The person that can do that is no different that the man in Michigan who dismembered his wife and sprinkled her body in the woods.

4:40 - The #1 cause - exploding pinatas.

This is a bad law. Regardless of one's stand on if and when abortion is morally acceptable, the state now gets to decide how doctors can or can't practice medicine, based entirely on the political views of those temporarily in power.

I find that terrifying.

To all the happy anti-abortion/pro-life folks, what if twenty years down the road, the state decides it doesn't want to pay those big Medicare/Medicaid bills for old boomers, and starts legislating what kinds of end-of-life procedures doctors can and can't perform? Full-coding a 98 year old with multiple chronic conditions is pretty gruesome and messy, too, and rarely is helpful. Maybe some cost-strapped state will decide to put some limits on what gets done there- there's a strong "death with dignity" movement prepared to push for legislation similar to what they've done in Oregon. Maybe in 20 years, the death with diginity folks'll be advocating as effectively as the pro-life folks.

In the present, how about some *more* legislation about what kinds of drugs or surgical procedures are or aren't available for the seriously ill?

Or legislating what vaccines people must have? Texas is already giving that a try.

This is potentially about a lot more than abortion, and I find it irritating that so many conservatives consider this a "victory." If Hillary gets elected, I suspect you all are not going to be quite so pleased with the precedent of congress passing and a president signing bills about what kinds of medical care we get to have, or don't get to have, in this country.

I am very, very disturbed by the lack of an exception for the mother's health - it is a jurisprudential first that we should all take extremely seriously.

Listen, nobody's getting a late-term abortion for fun. It's a pretty uncomfortable procedure to go through at an early stage - I can't even imagine a later stage. Surely, the vast majority of late-term abortions are for a reason that implicates either the mother's life or some serious problem with the fetus that would necessitate such a drastic procedure.

I'm reminded of Wanda Sykes's bit about the female friends getting abortions on a lark and turning to each other and saying "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

"Why not just keep women at home?"

KFU, make no mistake, that's what a LOT of these people want to do.

Re the p